2006. 02. 15.
From József Szájer MEP.
Sir, I share most of the views of your editorial concerning the sendees directive ("Disservice directive", February 10). However, I firmly disagree with its conclusion – that a massively diluted directive on services is better than none at all.
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice is consistent and guarantees the free movement of sendees against national protectionism. The original goal of having a special directive on services was to go beyond this established j jurisprudence by bringing down the I remaining barriers and by reinforcing the principle of country of origin.
Most of the obstacles member states impose on providers from other member states have been found by the court to be against the basic treaties of the European Union. If the number and extent of excuses for states to control service providers from other member states grows; beyond the present situation the original rationale of the draft directive is lost.
This is exactly what was brokered last week in the European parliament between certain groups of MEPs. It is nothing other than killing the directive without dropping its name. Certain politicians have not enough courage to admit their opposition to the directive so they choose a different way to kill it.
I am convinced that at present a clear cut majority in the European parliament for a non-diluted, non-castrated services directive can still be built. If the text ends up according to last week's compromise, it is better to vote against it, than support a directive that creates newobstacles and freezes Europe's services market for 30 more years.
Vice-Chairman, EPP-ED and Group
Head. Hungarian EPP-ED Delegation
Financial Times, 6. page, 2006.02.15.